|
|
|
Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Samiharris, One editor is using "open proxies" |
|
|
Kato |
|
dhd
Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,521
Joined:
Member No.: 767
|
Here's a link to the check user made on # Samiharris (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser) # Mantanmoreland (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...Case/SamiharrisConclusion: QUOTE(Thatcher) I don't for a minute think that Palabrazo [who made the request] is a curious bystander who just happened across this request. However, based on the standards I usually use, and pretending I don't know the history here, the evidence is sufficient to run a check. The answer is Inconclusive because one of these editors has only edited via open proxies. Thatcher 01:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC) Didn't Armed Blowfish get banned for edited via open proxies?
|
|
|
|
Kato |
|
dhd
Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,521
Joined:
Member No.: 767
|
Oh deary me... (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) JzG swoops in... QUOTE(JzG) * This should be blanked or deleted; Palabrazo [who made the request] has been blocked as either being or acting as proxy for a banned user. [[User Talk:JzG|Guy]] 08:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC) If one is interested in learning about wiki-Corruption, poor behavior, bias, cover-ups or just the plain Seething Idiocy of the place, JzG is a dream come true. He's great. One need only browse his contributions for a couple of minutes and you feel like Woodward and Bernstein.
|
|
|
|
dogbiscuit |
|
Could you run through Verifiability not Truth once more?
Group: Members
Posts: 2,972
Joined:
From: The Midlands
Member No.: 4,015
|
QUOTE(Kato @ Wed 6th February 2008, 10:46am) Oh deary me... (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) JzG swoops in... QUOTE(JzG) * This should be blanked or deleted; Palabrazo [who made the request] has been blocked as either being or acting as proxy for a banned user. [[User Talk:JzG|Guy]] 08:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC) If one is interested in learning about wiki-Corruption, poor behavior, bias, cover-ups or just the plain Seething Idiocy of the place, JzG is a dream come true. He's great. One need only browse his contributions for a couple of minutes and you feel like Woodward and Bernstein. There are times though that he actually is trying to do the right thing - but he still can't get it right. He tries to delete some paedophile pages, and gets accused of wheel-warring by the Defenders of the Faith. ANI linkI'll leave other comments for another time. He announced that today is the day of the funeral. This post has been edited by dogbiscuit:
|
|
|
|
WordBomb |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 513
Joined:
Member No.: 309
|
QUOTE(Kato @ Wed 6th February 2008, 6:46am) Oh deary me... (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) JzG swoops in... QUOTE(JzG) * This should be blanked or deleted; Palabrazo [who made the request] has been blocked as either being or acting as proxy for a banned user. [[User Talk:JzG|Guy]] 08:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC) If one is interested in learning about wiki-Corruption, poor behavior, bias, cover-ups or just the plain Seething Idiocy of the place, JzG is a dream come true. He's great. One need only browse his contributions for a couple of minutes and you feel like Woodward and Bernstein. If they delete the RfCU based on the convenient prospect that it's a page started by a banned user, then I insist they also delete the entire article on Henry Schultz, which Palabrazo also started.
|
|
|
|
gomi |
|
Member
Group: Members
Posts: 3,022
Joined:
Member No.: 565
|
QUOTE(Viridae @ Wed 6th February 2008, 12:54am) Eiting from an open proxy is not banned, the account will not be banned and AB is not banned.
Perhaps you can explain this theory to Jayjg: QUOTE * 23:38, 18 February 2007 Jayjg blocked "Abcse (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (TOR proxy sleeper account) * 23:39, 18 February 2007 Jayjg blocked "Ovmy (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (TOR proxy sleeper account) * 23:39, 18 February 2007 Jayjg blocked "Egtlyvi (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (TOR proxy sleeper account) * 23:39, 18 February 2007 Jayjg blocked "Kitjoqka54 (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (TOR proxy sleeper account) * 23:39, 18 February 2007 Jayjg blocked "Atdso (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (TOR proxy sleeper account) * 07:06, 22 February 2007 Jayjg blocked "Famey415 (Talk | contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (TOR proxy using harassment sock) * 01:06, 11 March 2007 Jayjg blocked "Bigteenagemonster (Talk | contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (sockpuppet created with TOR proxy He made his position clear in this one: QUOTE * 06:59, 22 February 2007 Jayjg (Talk | contribs) blocked "80.154.39.13 (Talk)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 year ‎ (TOR proxy - TOR proxies are blocked, period, no "loggedin users") So don't BS here. You are stating your opinion. Admins can -- and do -- block for any reason they care to, on the thinnest of pretexts.
|
|
|
|
Derktar |
|
WR Black Ops
Group: Moderators
Posts: 1,029
Joined:
From: Torrance, California, USA
Member No.: 2,381
|
QUOTE(jorge @ Wed 6th February 2008, 4:04pm) QUOTE(Amarkov @ Wed 6th February 2008, 11:48pm) Wikipedia is often compared to an MMORPG. But it's more like a huge paper RPG, where the GM is biased and the high level players like to gang up against everyone else.
The question is, do Durova, GeorgeWilliamHerbert and JzG really believe that Samiharris and Mantanmoreland are not accounts run by Gary Weiss, or, are they just liars? I particularly liked this retort: QUOTE The methods that have been used to pursue this deserve our principled opposition: ban evasion, malicious cookies, privacy invasion, etc. That is no way to settle anything and the Wikipedians who construe any merit in the substance of that accusation ought to have posted the RFCU themselves. They should also have either persuaded the individual to refrain from unethical methods or, at least, they should have declared their disapproval; failure to do so tarnishes the reputations of these otherwise upstanding Wikipedians, who ought not to be lending their credibility to underhanded endeavors. If someone wants to really pursue this, the letigimate method would be to post an analysis in user space detailing specifics from the public edit histories with diffs, such as this assertion that these two accounts answer questions that were posed to the other: where? when? how often? and for how long? Roll up your sleeves, dig through the diffs, and do actual research to give us a fair basis for discussion. DurovaCharge! 22:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Spoken like someone who truly knows how to roll up her sleeves, dig through the diffs, and come up with completely off-base accusations against dedicated contributors to the encyclopedia. Fozzie, this truly is amazing how it's drawing out all the best Wikipedia has to offer, and apparently offering them about 12 feet of self-threading noose-quality rope. -- Man On The Scene (talk) 00:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC) Bam.
|
|
|
|
Kato |
|
dhd
Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,521
Joined:
Member No.: 767
|
HeerresJzG
QUOTE(JzG) Back when I was a lad I was taught that anythign created by a banned user while banned was eligible for immediate deletion, WP:CSD#G5. What? (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif) No policy states that.QUOTE(JzG) Bagley is a known net.kook and absolutely not above forgery, the "evidence" he presents off-wiki is questionable not just because he is a vicious agenda-driven troll but also because the times have been called into question. What? (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif) Judd Bagley is "a vicious agenda-driven troll"???? QUOTE(JzG) Don't be daft. WordBomb logged the CheckUser request, it should be nuked. If not nuked, it is inconclusive. As noted above, the mere fact of being interested in naked short selling is enough to get WordBomb on your case; What? (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif) You banned Piperdown on the East Coast, some guy in Basingstoke England, and accused Cla68 in Japan of being Wordbomb because they edited on naked short selling. QUOTE(JzG) It's got nothign to do with that other site you're involved in, other than as the venue for Bagley publishing his possibly fraudulent evidence. I don't know why anyone would give him the time of day, he's so obviously off in laa-laa land on this subject. Guy (Help!) 22:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC) Wordbomb politely requested a checkuser. How is that a problem, and how is that obviously "off in laa-laa land on this subject?"If I was a devoted Wikipedian, I would be forcing JzG off the project by now. He's just a walking nightmare for the site. As I'm not, he provides a textbook study of all that is wrong with the place. Reading him is like those chapters in Management Training Manuals where they run through all the ways not to behave.
|
|
|
|
Derktar |
|
WR Black Ops
Group: Moderators
Posts: 1,029
Joined:
From: Torrance, California, USA
Member No.: 2,381
|
QUOTE(jorge @ Wed 6th February 2008, 4:21pm) QUOTE(dtobias @ Thu 7th February 2008, 12:14am) WordBomb, if the user that started the Checkuser request is actually you (as has reportedly been shown by Checkuser), you've done the "anti-clique" cause a disservice, by giving people like JzG the smug feeling of "I-told-you-so" when their knee-jerk reactions to anybody committing the thought crime of raising ideas similar to yours proved to correctly identify a sockpuppet. If the user had turned out to be a truly unrelated party, the discussions would have been able to proceed (as they had actually started earlier) along the lines of pointing out the absurdity of banning all ideas resembling those of a banned user; there was starting to be a lot of criticism of the cliqueistas on those grounds. Unfortunately, this has largely fizzled out as a result of their sockpuppetry suspicions proving correct.
DTobias, don't you think that the reason that no "truly unrelated party"brings this case up is that noone dares to put themselves in the firing line that bringing up this case will put them in? I think many people do care about this case, but they are simply too afraid of being blocked to doing anything about it. One way or another, the usual BADSITES crowd would have shouted down whoever made the request. "a banned user made the request it's not valid!" "a proxy for a banned user made the request it's not valid!" "a WR regular made the request it's not valid!" "a party with an agenda made the request it's not valid!"
|
|
|
|
Amarkov |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Inactive
Posts: 646
Joined:
From: Figure it out and get a cookie
Member No.: 3,635
|
QUOTE(Derktar @ Wed 6th February 2008, 4:24pm) QUOTE(jorge @ Wed 6th February 2008, 4:21pm) QUOTE(dtobias @ Thu 7th February 2008, 12:14am) WordBomb, if the user that started the Checkuser request is actually you (as has reportedly been shown by Checkuser), you've done the "anti-clique" cause a disservice, by giving people like JzG the smug feeling of "I-told-you-so" when their knee-jerk reactions to anybody committing the thought crime of raising ideas similar to yours proved to correctly identify a sockpuppet. If the user had turned out to be a truly unrelated party, the discussions would have been able to proceed (as they had actually started earlier) along the lines of pointing out the absurdity of banning all ideas resembling those of a banned user; there was starting to be a lot of criticism of the cliqueistas on those grounds. Unfortunately, this has largely fizzled out as a result of their sockpuppetry suspicions proving correct.
DTobias, don't you think that the reason that no "truly unrelated party"brings this case up is that noone dares to put themselves in the firing line that bringing up this case will put them in? I think many people do care about this case, but they are simply too afraid of being blocked to doing anything about it. One way or another, the usual BADSITES crowd would have shouted down whoever made the request. "a banned user made the request it's not valid!" "a proxy for a banned user made the request it's not valid!" "a WR regular made the request it's not valid!" "a party with an agenda made the request it's not valid!" True, but there is a rule that quite explicitly says banned users aren't allowed to do anything. Their rule that WR regulars aren't allowed to do anything isn't written down anywhere, so it's harder to pull it off.
|
|
|
|
WordBomb |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 513
Joined:
Member No.: 309
|
QUOTE(dtobias @ Wed 6th February 2008, 8:14pm) WordBomb, if the user that started the Checkuser request is actually you (as has reportedly been shown by Checkuser), you've done the "anti-clique" cause a disservice, by giving people like JzG the smug feeling of "I-told-you-so" when their knee-jerk reactions to anybody committing the thought crime of raising ideas similar to yours proved to correctly identify a sockpuppet. I disagree. For the first time, the eminently rational " If the devil tells you your fly is opened, don't you zip up anyway?" argument has been posited by more than one established editor. This is the point I've been trying to make since July of 2006. This, in turn, opens up the door to examine my other previously-dismissed-out-of-hand claims. Which is exactly why JzG is working up a sweat as he is. QUOTE(dtobias @ Wed 6th February 2008, 8:14pm) If the user had turned out to be a truly unrelated party, the discussions would have been able to proceed (as they had actually started earlier)... If the user had been a truly unrelated party, it never would have happened. Not many folks are willing to throw away a productive account. I don't care. Furthermore, where were they "proceeding"? How was one on the outside to know one way or the other? QUOTE(dtobias @ Wed 6th February 2008, 8:14pm) Unfortunately, this has largely fizzled out as a result of their sockpuppetry suspicions proving correct. Again, I refer to my earlier point: I think pretty much everybody now sees that the central premise of ASM is true. If they want to leave Gary Weiss onboard like the crazy aunt in the room upstairs that nobody talks about, at least everybody knows that's what they're doing. My decision is a principled one: as long as I'm open to trashing by Weiss and his fellow-traveling band of corrupt sidekicks with no opportunity for rebuttal, WordBomb will continue roaming the countryside. As soon as Weiss is gone, I'll be gone.
|
|
|
|
WordBomb |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 513
Joined:
Member No.: 309
|
QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Wed 6th February 2008, 8:48pm) Entertaining as it is watching the usual subjects pile on, it now is appropriate for us to watch quietly from the sidelines. There are some familiar names there who are fighting for the good name of Wikipedia (not for WR even if inspired my WR) for their own reasons. Let's not undermine their efforts by inappropriate comments (edit: not directed at anyone, inc. WB).
...But George is a gem, isn't he?
Good point, well taken. But one last thing: will someone please encourage MONGO to "refactor" this " history of fabrication of evidence" bullshit? I don't think he has any idea what he's saying. Just please ask him to back that up with a single shred of anything other than JzG spittle.
|
|
|
|
Piperdown |
|
Fat Cat
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,613
Joined:
Member No.: 2,995
|
QUOTE(Derktar @ Thu 7th February 2008, 12:56am) Let's not forget Fred Bauder's comment that he was socking and then he "quit."
You mean Thatcher. As in my sig. As in the lying scum who is doing gymnastics to close up any CU. Funny how that works. Lar seems to be the only admin being allowed to opine on this matter that wasn't already compromised by previous actions (Baudy, Thatcher, SlumVersion, FloByNight, etc). Note all the diversion by the BritneySpears-stage JzG (never go public when under personal distress - Chris Crocker vids to "leave Manny Moresocks alone! pending). So.....Samiharris uses a proxy. Why? Because he is Mantanmoreland. And a good checkuser will find IP evidence of that. Sami surely didn't edit under a different proxy than Manny every time. Since the late January brou-ha-ha? Sure, I'll wager he was very very careful. Before? He was the belle of the untouchable ball, and anyone with any balls will find common IP editing between those two if they go back far enough. Spineless wonders abound in WP Adminville. And you should step forward (more than you already have to your credit) Alison. When one is in the right with the facts, might does not make right. This post has been edited by Piperdown:
|
|
|
|
Piperdown |
|
Fat Cat
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,613
Joined:
Member No.: 2,995
|
QUOTE(Derktar @ Thu 7th February 2008, 2:41am) QUOTE(Piperdown @ Wed 6th February 2008, 6:37pm) QUOTE(Derktar @ Thu 7th February 2008, 12:56am) Let's not forget Fred Bauder's comment that he was socking and then he "quit."
You mean Thatcher. As in my sig. Ah my mistake, thought I had gotten something wrong, thanks much for the correction. well, you're right too. Thatcer was quoting the ever quotable Fred. Who was always happy to tell the truth about Mantanmoreland. I might just go digg up those diffs where "both" Gary's had the exact same hysterical reaction during separate talk page threads. This post has been edited by Piperdown:
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| |